DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against
Julie Rose Gionest, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Ravi Vethamany, OCT, Chair Marie-Thérèse Hokayem Jane Ishibashi
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS Emily MacKinnon, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Annie Lacroix, Law Clerk
– and –
JULIE ROSE GIONEST (CERTIFICATE # 478848) Patricia D’Heureux, Cavalluzzo LLP, for Julie Rose Gionest
Erica Richler, Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, Independent Legal Counsel
Heard: November 22, 2017
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on November 22, 2017 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto. A Notice of Hearing dated July 20, 2015 (Exhibit 1) was served on Julie Rose Gionest (the “Member”), requesting her presence on September 8, 2015 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for November 22, 2017.
The Member was not in attendance for the hearing but had legal representation.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”) in that:
(a) she failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) she abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(c) she abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(d) she failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(e) she committed acts that having regard to all the circumstances would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18); and
(f) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
Counsel for the College advised the Committee that an agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced an Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
At all material times, Julie Rose Gionest was a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information regarding the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Peel District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”). The Member taught [XXX].
On or around December 1, 2011, while speaking with a colleague in the School’s gym, the Member was struck in the head by a basketball. Student 1, who is Muslim, was in the vicinity retrieving a ball. The Member said to Student 1 words to the effect of “Is this what your religion teaches you?” in reference to hitting someone in the head then laughing at them. The Member regretted her comment, recognizing it was inappropriate. She apologized to Student 1 and her parents and understood that her apology was accepted.
Following the December 1, 2011 incident, the Member received a letter of discipline from the Board, and was directed to participate in sensitivity training. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Board’s December 16, 2011 letter to the Member.
During the academic year 2011-2012, the Member made inappropriate comments to or about students in her Grade [XXX] [XXX] class. The Member’s evidence would be that the comments were made colloquially with irony and jest and without intending offence. The Member now realizes that her comments were inappropriate irrespective of her intent. Her comments included the following:
(a) Referring to Student 2, who is Muslim, as “Bomber”;
(b) Referring to Student 2 as “dildo”;
(c) Referring to Student 3, who is white, as “Cracker” and “Whitey”; and
(d) Referring to Student 4, who is black, as a “thief” and/or saying words to the effect that “all blacks are thieves”.
During the 2011-2012 academic year, the Member used the words “shit” and “hell” in error in the presence of students.
During her Grade [XXX] [XXX] class, the Member discussed with students subjects of a sexual nature. The Member’s evidence would be that the [XXX] class followed a class on [XXX] with a different teacher and that students made comments and/or asked her questions that they had as a result of that earlier class. The Member’s evidence would be that she responded to students when she was asked questions about:
(a) The sexual act referred to as “69”;
(b) Use of a dildo;
(c) The meaning of “cunt”; and
(d) The pornographic website “redtube.com”.
- Following the School’s investigation, the Member received a letter of discipline. She also chose to transfer to a different school. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Board’s June 18, 2012 discipline letter to the Member.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document1, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:
(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations against her;
(b) she understands that by signing this document she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) she understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;
(d) she understands that the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons shall be published on the College’s website, and that a summary of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons, including her name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;
(e) she understands that any agreement between her counsel and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee; and
(f) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
- In light of the Admitted Facts and circumstances and the plea of guilt, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
DECISION
Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 8 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and pleaded guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She acknowledged and the Committee accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
Paragraphs 3 to 7 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).
Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7).
Paragraphs 3, 5 and 7 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2).
Paragraphs 3 to 7 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15).
Paragraphs 3 to 7 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18).
Paragraphs 3 to 7 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
Through a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 4), the parties jointly submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed in this matter would be that the Committee:
direct that the Member receive a reprimand. Submissions will be made on the issue of whether the reprimand should be delivered in written form or in person. The fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
direct the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms, conditions or limitations to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:
(a) prior to commencing a teaching position or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required (a “Teaching Position”), the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding boundary violations and sensitivity issues, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide to a course provider approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;
(ii) following review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course provider will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course provider shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;
(b) within 30 days of her completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course provider:
(i) stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.
SUBMISSIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE FORM OF THE REPRIMAND
College Counsel
With respect to the form of the reprimand, College Counsel took no formal position as to whether the reprimand should be delivered in person or in writing. College Counsel provided the Committee with Ontario College of Teachers v. Saunders, 2016 ONOCT 67 (“Saunders”) to assist with the panel’s determination as to the appropriate form of the reprimand, but noted that the misconduct in Saunders was more serious than the Member’s misconduct. College Counsel submitted that the decision to order an oral or a written reprimand was entirely within the Committee’s discretion.
Member’s Counsel
Member’s Counsel submitted that the reprimand ought to be delivered in writing for a number of reasons. Among other things, the Member lives far from Toronto and it would cause her undue hardship to travel to the College to receive her reprimand in person; the Member has not been teaching since 2012 and she has no intention of returning to the teaching profession; delivering the reprimand in writing will ensure that the Member receives her reprimand; and, if the Committee were to find that more serious cases of professional misconduct should result in reprimands being delivered in person, then the Committee ought to find that the Member’s case was at the lower end of the spectrum of professional misconduct (and ought to therefore order that her reprimand be delivered in writing). Member’s Counsel presented Ontario College of Teachers v. Cheechoo, 2017 ONOCT 25 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Crawford, 2008 ONOCT 15 in support of her position that a written reprimand would be appropriate in this case.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee accepts the Joint Submission on Penalty presented by the parties and makes an order in accordance with its terms, as set out above. With respect to the issue of the form of the reprimand, the Committee directs that the Member receive a written reprimand.
REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
The Committee accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Committee recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Committee’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest. The Committee finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is proportionate to the misconduct committed by the Member and is reasonable given the circumstances of this case. The penalty proposed by the parties is also within a reasonable range, based on the following analogous cases presented by the College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Brown, 2017 ONOCT 27 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Graham, 2015 ONOCT 32.
The Committee finds that the Member’s repeated pattern of making discriminatory, sexually explicit, and disrespectful comments warrants a reprimand by her peers. The Member’s misconduct involved multiple students over the course of one academic year. The Committee is concerned with the Member’s lack of sensitivity toward students and her lack of professional judgment. Members of the profession are expected to behave respectfully and to foster collaborative, safe and supportive learning communities. The Member’s conduct fell short of meeting these expectations. The reprimand will allow the Committee to directly address its concerns with the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession. Given that the College took no position with respect to the form of the reprimand and that Member’s Counsel provided a number of reasons why a written reprimand would be appropriate in this case, the Committee finds that it is reasonable in the circumstances to order that the Member’s reprimand be delivered in writing.
The Committee finds that the course of instruction regarding boundary violations and sensitivity training will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a teacher and will help her to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.
Publication of this decision with the Member’s name is now mandatory in accordance with subsection 45.1 of the Act. Accordingly, the Committee’s decision and reasons will be published with the Member’s name on the College’s website and a summary will be published with the Member’s name in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: December 6, 2017
Ravi Vethamany, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Marie-Thérèse Hokayem Member, Discipline Panel
Jane Ishibashi Member, Discipline Panel